Re: [Netconf] Editorial change-2 for draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf

Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F5F130E0D; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W2fF2ZL_I4VV; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88EC1292F1; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1C20144BD1D8B; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:20:32 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:20:33 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.6]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:20:22 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
CC: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Editorial change-2 for draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf
Thread-Index: AdP5cHGIUfFqVxlzSpC0uX7jp7wZ7gAETTEAAIolOQAAAYmwAAGVpb+AAC3FYYAAEkICwA==
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:20:21 +0000
Message-ID: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBBD928@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBB4569@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <a497b165-1f78-2d2f-9563-01fbb39619df@cisco.com> <20180604.121748.1873023460220711310.mbj@tail-f.com> <224028b2-59c5-6859-0e2a-331ed48121ec@cisco.com> <D42566D9-0C25-468E-B90F-B15589A7FB6D@gmail.com> <20180613102721.tnqufeommaojdwm2@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20180613102721.tnqufeommaojdwm2@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/j8B6u6bK0fC9grVsMY6qASqhqzc>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Editorial change-2 for draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:20:40 -0000

Hi Juergen,

Can you please identify the namespaces which are not OK so that we can fix them. 
For want of a namespace for "bgp", I re-used the ietf-netconf-nmda namespace as it is just an example. We can use the "http://example.com/ns/example" namespace instead.

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade

-----Original Message-----
From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: 13 June 2018 15:57
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Editorial change-2 for draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf

I am not sure an example is needed but if we include one, we need one which is correct. I think the namespaces are a bit messed up in Rohit's example.

/js

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 08:36:47AM -0400, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Have the authors agreed on the final set of edits for this document? How about the example that Rohit mentioned in the original e-mail?
> 
> > On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 04/06/2018 11:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> 
> >> Two comments inline.
> >> 
> >> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Rohit, authors,
> >>> 
> >>> I think that these are valid clarifications. I've reworded them 
> >>> slightly, and moved the ancestor node text to the YANG module 
> >>> instead.  I also think that the ancestor node text generically 
> >>> covers the config filter clarification that you raised previously.
> >>> 
> >>> Hence, I propose the following diff to the NETCONF NMDA draft:
> >>> 
> >>> rwilton@rwilton-lnx:~/netconf-wg/netconf-nmda$ git diff --staged 
> >>> diff --git a/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang b/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang index 
> >>> f2929b9..72a674a 100644
> >>> --- a/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang
> >>> +++ b/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang
> >>> @@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ module ietf-netconf-nmda {
> >>>         by get-data must satisfy all filters, i.e., the filter
> >>>         criteria are logically ANDed.
> >>> 
> >>> +       Any ancestor nodes (including list keys) of nodes matched by
> >>> +       the filter are included in the response.
> >>> +
> >>>         The 'with-origin' parameter is only valid for an operational
> >>>         datastore. If 'with-origin' is used with an invalid datastore,
> >>>         then the server MUST return an <rpc-error> element with an 
> >>> @@ -193,7 +196,7 @@ module ietf-netconf-nmda {
> >>>            description
> >>>              "Filter based on the 'origin' annotation.  A node matches
> >>>               the filter if its 'origin' annotation is not derived
> >>> -             from and not equal to all of the given filter values.";
> >>> +             from and not equal to any of the given filter 
> >>> + values.";
> >>>          }
> >>>        }
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/nmda-netconf.org b/nmda-netconf.org index 
> >>> e44e2c7..100e173 100644
> >>> --- a/nmda-netconf.org
> >>> +++ b/nmda-netconf.org
> >>> @@ -129,14 +129,17 @@ The "config-filter" parameter can be used to 
> >>> retrieve only "config  true" or "config false" nodes.
> >>> 
> >>>  The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple 
> >>> times, -selects nodes matching any of the given values. The 
> >>> -"negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, 
> >>> selects -nodes that do not match all given values. The "origin-filter"
> >>> -and "negated-origin-filter" parameters cannot be used together.
> >>> +selects nodes with origins matching, or derived from, any of the
> >>> given
> >> I would prefer:
> >> 
> >>  selects nodes with origins equal to, or derived from, any of the  
> >> given
> >> 
> >> 
> >> IMO, the term "match" in the original text means "equal to or 
> >> derived-from", as explained in the data model.
> >> 
> >> The term "match" is problematic unless it is explained, b/c some 
> >> people will think it means "equal to".  (Noone will think that 
> >> "matches the regular expression" means "equal to the regular 
> >> expression" though...)
> >> 
> >> Conclusion: always avoid the term "match".
> > OK.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> +values. The "negated-origin-filter", which can be present 
> >>> +multiple times, selects nodes with origins that do not match, and 
> >>> +are not derived from, any of the given values. The 
> >>> +"origin-filter" and "negated-origin-filter" parameters cannot be used together.
> >>> 
> >>>  The "max-depth" parameter can be used by the client to limit the  
> >>> number of sub-tree levels that are returned in the reply.
> >>> 
> >>> Note to the authors, for the negative-origin-filter, I've also 
> >>> changed "all" to "any" (which changes the semantics, but I think 
> >>> it was wrong before).
> >> Agree that "any" is correct.
> >> 
> >> But does it really change the semantics?  "all" sounds quite odd, 
> >> but isn't the end result the same?
> > I think that it is confusing, and probably depends on how you read it.
> > 
> > But, if you are OK with "any" then I think that reads better and is more intuitive.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> /martin
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Similar updates will need to also be done to RESTCONF, but let's 
> >>> agree the NETCONF text first.
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Rob
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 01/06/2018 10:10, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Section 3.1.1
> >>>> 
> >>>> OLD:
> >>>> 
> >>>>    The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple 
> >>>> times,
> >>>> 
> >>>>    selects nodes matching any of the given values.  The
> >>>> 
> >>>> "negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, 
> >>>> selects
> >>>> 
> >>>>    nodes that do not match all given values.
> >>>> 
> >>>> NEW:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple 
> >>>> times,
> >>>> 
> >>>>    selects nodes which are derived from or matching any of the 
> >>>> given values.  The
> >>>> 
> >>>> "negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, 
> >>>> selects
> >>>> 
> >>>>    nodes which are not derived from and do not match all given values.
> >>>> 
> >>>> When a data-node matching the filter is selected, the 
> >>>> configuration ancestors
> >>>> 
> >>>> (if any) and list key leafs (if any), even if they do not match 
> >>>> the filter, are also returned.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Consider two origins such as “learned” and “derived-from-learned”.
> >>>> 
> >>>> “derived-from-learned” is derived from learned origin.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Using the origin filters it is not possible to get nodes 
> >>>> belonging to “learned”
> >>>> 
> >>>> only as the nodes of derived origin are automatically selected.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Notes:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The text in 3.1.1 did not include the “derived-from” logic for 
> >>>> selection , while in the data-model definition it was present.
> >>>> 
> >>>>  We can also add clarification about the ancestor and key being 
> >>>> output, even if though they do match the filter, since the leaf
> >>>> 
> >>>> matches the filter.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Example : We can use the RFC 8342 Appendix C.2 BGP Example
> >>>> 
> >>>>    <rpc message-id="101"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >>>> 
> >>>>      <get-data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
> >>>> 
> >>>> <datastore>ds:running</datastore>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <subtree-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <bgp 
> >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda"/>
> >>>> 
> >>>>       </subtree-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <negated-origin-filter>intended</negated-origin-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <with-origin>true</with-origin>
> >>>> 
> >>>>      </get-data>
> >>>> 
> >>>> </rpc>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    <rpc-reply message-id="101"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >>>> 
> >>>>      <data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda">
> >>>> 
> >>>>       <bgp xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
> >>>> 
> >>>> or:origin="or:intended">
> >>>> 
> >>>>        <peer>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <name>2001:db8::2:3</name>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <local-as or:origin="or:default">64501</local-as>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <peer-as or:origin="or:default">64502</peer-as>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <local-port or:origin="or:system">60794</local-port>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <remote-port or:origin="or:default">179</remote-port>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <state>established</state>
> >>>> 
> >>>>        </peer>
> >>>> 
> >>>>       </bgp>
> >>>> 
> >>>>      </data>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    </rpc-reply>
> >>>> 
> >>>> With Regards,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Rohit R Ranade
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Netconf mailing list
> >>>> Netconf@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf